My favorite parts of the article:

The 2007 study should be seen as a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.

In this case, it turns out the mistakes were fixed the first time around: before the paper was published.

A hint: in general, when writing a review article, you don't both to write about stuff that isn't finished.

At most, you give it a brief mention in a section "future directions and open problems". You discuss it with superlatives like, "this looks promising". You don't, however, pass it off as part of what is known.